Rex Smith: Aren’t newspapers really sexy?

This column is not about sex. But it mentions sex, and I have always hoped to figure out a way to use “sexy” in my column headline in order to increase readership. We all know that sex sells, right?

No, this column is about newspapers, but it goes without saying, of course, that newspapers are sexy. Consider the last time you went into a singles bar: That hot prospect you were eyeing probably had a newspaper under his or her arm, right?

What’s that you say? You haven’t been to a singles bar since the Ford administration? Well, me either, but I don’t suspect anything about newspapers and how people perceive them — sexy, remember? — has changed since then.

What makes me think about newspapers and sex is the colorful full-page ad you might have seen in the Times Union last month. It shows a cartoonish drawing of a young woman with a newspaper and a cup of coffee on a table, her thought bubbles filled with other versions of a newspaper — a Web site, a mobile site, a digital tablet — and, beneath the drawing, the caption, “Smart is the new sexy.”

This was one of eight test markets for a new ad campaign sponsored by the Newspaper Association of America. The response must have been favorable, because soon the ad will be rolled out nationwide. The goal of the ad, according to Mark Contreras, a publishing executive who was until recently the NAA chairman, is to show why newspapers are trusted and valued.

“We want to remind people that newspapers are still the greatest source of news in the country,” Contreras told Editor & Publisher magazine, “and to equate the reading of newspapers with staying informed and being smart.”

I’m with him up to that point. Research shows that newspaper readers are smarter, have better jobs and make more money than non-readers. That applies, by the way, to those of you reading this in some digital form. You folks — readers all, bless ya’ — are smart.

But where does the “sexy” stuff come in?

Here’s what troubles me about this: The breadth of information you acquire from reading a newspaper ought to be seen as a value in itself. Being smart is its own reward. Yes, it tends to carry with it other benefits — not just more income, but also satisfaction and self-awareness. All those, though, are internal values.

Saying you’re “sexy,” on the other hand, involves how you’re perceived by others. Is being smart really valuable only if it makes you somehow more sexually desirable?

And — not to get too pedantic about this, but I’m just sayin’ — if smart is the new sexy, what was the old sexy? The opposite? I mean, did women used to look at a guy and say, “Hey, you there, dumb as a bag of hammers, you wanna get down?” I suspect not.

Actually, another way to read that phrase would suggest that smart, the new thing, has replaced sexy, the old thing. But that would imply that if newspapers are smart, they’re definitely not sexy. Which we all know is untrue.

Perhaps it’s picky of me to suggest that newspapers ought to be able to sell themselves to readers without resorting to the same sales pitch as deodorant and fast cars. Maybe my beef really is with an American society that has so devalued intelligent discourse in civic affairs that a growing share of people count blatantly biased voices — whether Rush Limbaugh’s or Jon Stewart’s — as their primary news sources.

I get the fact, too, that we need to redefine newspapers in the marketplace. People have heard a lot about the declining fortunes of newspapers, and it’s certainly true that the combination of an economic bust and a technological revolution have hammered our bottom line. As a medium, newsprint’s fairly dull.

But we’re not just ink on crushed trees: Timesunion.com draws more than 600,000 unique visitors each week, and on many days more people read Times Union content in a digital form than in print. And our content isn’t just eat-your-peas-they’re-good-for-you stuff. There are fun stories, cool features, great photos and video, useful information and touching narratives.

The fact is that this newspaper doesn’t just make you smart; it also can make you more fun, and (in the kitchen and around the house, for example) more functional. It can help you sort the public servants from the poseurs, make informed consumer choices and remember that your neighbors aren’t so different from you, after all.

But will it make you more sexy? Help me out with this: Should I entertain the fantasy of singles bars echoing the sound of riffling newsprint, of women admiring me and men fearing me because I am a newspaper editor? Probably not, huh?

What is really sexy is how your newspaper missed writing about the stock market crashing over 500 points. I know, I know more important to keep the bad news off the front pages as we approach the next presidential election. As a reminder, please don’t write too much about the three wars we are fighting in like you did during the last race. Actually, we were only fighting in two wars but whose counting that these days?

John: You must be looking at the wrong newspaper. The stock market crash is covered at the top left of the front page in today’s Times Union, as well as in a banner story with a big black headline on page C1 and in a second analysis piece on page C2.

I’ve viewed Gallop polls over the years – and “Journalism integrity” had a much higher ranking in the mid 1980′s. It has fallen dramatically due to an ever increasing agenda driven not news driven press. The TU is guilty of not reporting news worthy stories – when 50 liberal congressmen, TAKE THE TIME to sign a written condemnation document of a radio talk show host in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the man said I want to know about it. A few days later the man gets the original documentation letter – and auctions it off for over a million dollars, he matches the donation and the proceeds went to the kids of killed military dads and moms. Instead of telling us the truth, a congressional attempt to suppress this man’s integrity and free speech rights, the TU endorses decides to endorse the lie through the “opinion” section.

When Pew research reports that in October of 2008, Major newspapers thoughout the States had 9 front page favorable stories for Obama versus just one for McCain that is vital information.

I do not and have never listened to Rush Limbaugh…I don’t like extremists. I did research the condemnation letter however. I’m a fact driven individual..I read CBO reports, SS trustee reports – I HAVE no use for idealogues that have to search for facts to support their agenda driven theme. Thankfully a lot of American’s feel the same – again Gallup shows how more people are concerned with the agenda driven press than CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!

Rex, you live in a white tower. For you to think that people don’t want the truth and that’s why your integrity rating is so low is mind numbing. Dennis Kucinich is one of the most liberal reps in congress. I don’t agree with him 70 percent of the time. But I’ll tell you this, I trust the man. I think he’s honest, smart, and I have the upmost respect for him. I read the TU, as I love newspapers…but I don’t get my facts from you. I look eleswhere; front pages of USA Today, the Wallstreet Journal (not their editorial pages), Medicare trustee reports…but facts and the truth from the TU, not even close Rex.

Rex,
Newspapers became “dull” when there were too few of them to provide the kind of competitive environment that used to make them dig for the real news and seek out readers. Nowadays, the news, particularly, but not limited to, international news, is controlled by the state propaganda conduit: Associated Press. It is not the news business that is not “sexy,” but government and establishment propaganda. The attrocious coverage of the conflict in Libya, where it has been assumed that the rebels and NATO have the just cause, is a case in point. There was some media buzz about the Ron Paul coverage as well, where it became obvious to all that the press was biased against a viable Paul candidacy. You will continue to lose readers with your boring coverage, but perhaps you are waiting for federal funding of newspapers, after which the state will have achieved its goal of complete control of the press–a mere appendage of the government. Are you cooperating with this transition, or resisting it? I fear it is the former.